Gamers prefer XP
-
Sure - but gamers are also most likely to put water pipes on the inside of their computer. On purpose. And overclock $600 graphics cards and $1000 CPUs for a single-digit performance gain. And don't even get me started on the internal neon case lighting... Back in my day, we had rectangular beige metal boxes, and we liked it that way. :)
-- Russell Morris Morbo: "WINDMILLS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!"
Russell Morris wrote:
And overclock $600 graphics cards and $1000 CPUs for a single-digit performance gain
Correction... a single digit performance gain AND the look on the other guys face when you benchmark higher then his $700 graphics card lol
Russell Morris wrote:
And don't even get me started on the internal neon case lighting...
Yeah I never really got into that either.. Looked too much like they were trying to "pimp" their desktop.
Russell Morris wrote:
Back in my day, we had rectangular beige metal boxes
... Then they invented computers ;P
"There are three sides to every story. Yours, mine and the truth" ~ unknown
-
Thunderbox666 wrote:
and I saw a thing recently saying that corporate environments are holding off on installing Vista.
As I sit here on my corporate PC with it's Vista sticker on it and XP installed, I can positively state that it is true. As this corporate has 13k PCs it seems fairly significant :-D
WOW Just out of curiosity, do you know why they stuck with XP?
"There are three sides to every story. Yours, mine and the truth" ~ unknown
-
Sure - but gamers are also most likely to put water pipes on the inside of their computer. On purpose. And overclock $600 graphics cards and $1000 CPUs for a single-digit performance gain. And don't even get me started on the internal neon case lighting... Back in my day, we had rectangular beige metal boxes, and we liked it that way. :)
-- Russell Morris Morbo: "WINDMILLS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!"
-
Thunderbox666 wrote:
and I saw a thing recently saying that corporate environments are holding off on installing Vista.
As I sit here on my corporate PC with it's Vista sticker on it and XP installed, I can positively state that it is true. As this corporate has 13k PCs it seems fairly significant :-D
In my department I will not put vista on any machine except for a few VMs for testing purposes until at least 2009. The biggest reason besides the slowness is that I know my users will hate the user interface changes just as they did when I tried to install office 2007 and everyone asked me to go beck to the old version.
John
-
WOW Just out of curiosity, do you know why they stuck with XP?
"There are three sides to every story. Yours, mine and the truth" ~ unknown
Straight out cost of change. I work in a bank and the environment is "hardened" so no one has admin rights and various other restrictions. These need to be tested and implemented and any other vulnerabilities identified - a HUGE job that is ongoing. Then there is the cost of training the support staff, the disruption while 1000s of users come to grips with a new OS. We recently went to 64 bit SQL Server and just getting all the driver and support SW for 64 bit was a nightmare and that was on servers, the mind boggles how they are going to get the desktops validated. :rolleyes:
-
I still have a rectangular beige metal box...it just gets a little bigger with every generation :)
-
SK Genius wrote:
Money? I find that money is usually quite the motivator.
Your talking about a group who are know for spending hundreds of $$'s just to get the latest game to run, or on the latest case to show off. Also, I dont know if you read the stats or not, but the most common graphics card among them was the nVidia 8800... Have you seen the cost on those lately?
SK Genius wrote:
Saying that gamers prefer XP is also quite the assumption
Have you been to any LAN parties lately? Hell have you even talked to many "gamers"? Not the people who play maybe one or two games a month, I mean REAL gamers! If you are near one anytime soon, just take a walk along the rows of computers there. Ask around, and see how many people, even if offered it for free, would install Vista. I would be willing to bet all my possesions that more would rather stick with XP, and I would most likely win!
SK Genius wrote:
80% of steams users are on XP.
True, 80% of over 600,000 gamers are still on XP after a year. Doesnt that alone say something?
SK Genius wrote:
you probably think FF is better than IE right? And if not, you probably think that Opera is better than IE? And if not... i guess you like IE
Care to take any more gueeses? I guess your a male right? If not, you are probably a female? and if not.... LOL sorry, I couldnt resist.. no hard feelings? :-D But yes, I do prefer FF
"There are three sides to every story. Yours, mine and the truth" ~ unknown
Couldn't agree more. For decades, adult entertainment has been the driving factor behind internet bandwidth growth and gaming has been the driving factor behind hardware acceleration. Just look at the games themselves (especially FPS). When a new game comes out, its minimum requirements are most often for a graphics card that is less than 6 months old, a CPU less than 12 months old & a memory interface less than 2 years old. If you want to turn on all the bells & whistles, you're going to need hardware that often still hasn't been released to the retail channel yet! To make the most out of the demanding gaming market, new games always have to bring something new & visually exciting, so each new game is more resource intensive than the last. Run a resource hungry game on an OS that is already resource hungry (Vista) & you don't get the most out of the game. Run the same game on a leaner OS (Xp) & you get more of a WOW factor. Back in the day, the keenest gamers absolutely loved it when ID ported Quake II to OpenGL under Linux - frame rates like you wouldn't believe (at the time). Don't know if that sort of thing happens these days, I'm not in that scene so much anymore...
T-Mac-Oz
-
its going to be a close race... Who do you think it is that is mainly accepting vista? As that hardware survey from steam shows, most gamers prefer XP, and I saw a thing recently saying that corporate environments are holding off on installing Vista.
"There are three sides to every story. Yours, mine and the truth" ~ unknown
Thunderbox666 wrote:
Who do you think it is that is mainly accepting vista?
I am. I am also a serious gamer and play games on Vista. I also play console games, but this is irrelevant. I had slight problems with a couple of _older_ titles on Vista, but nothing that couldn't be solved by trying out different compatibility settings. New games (those marked by 'Games for Windows' tag) run well on Vista without any problems at all.
Kind regards, Pawel Krakowiak Miraculum Software[^]
-
I really shouldnt be supprised.... A survey by Steam (http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html[^]) shows that over 80% of people that play on the steam network use a Windows XP machine.
"There are three sides to every story. Yours, mine and the truth" ~ unknown
To be honest, I think the message your post gives off is very misleading. So, lets assume that the Steam survey is pretty accurate, which means that approximately 14.6% of gamers are using Windows Vista (in both 32-bit and 64-bit forms). Lets also assume that the November census for Hitslink is also fairly accurate, which states an approximately 9.2% market share for Vista. What does this tell you? This tells me that gamers are much more likely to be running Vista than people in general, which is a completely different meaning from "hey look, XP has more market share than Vista when it comes to gaming". In fact, your statement should be very obvious, unless Vista has somehow balooned 20% in market share over the last season, or some kind of magic like that.
-
Thunderbox666 wrote:
and I saw a thing recently saying that corporate environments are holding off on installing Vista.
As I sit here on my corporate PC with it's Vista sticker on it and XP installed, I can positively state that it is true. As this corporate has 13k PCs it seems fairly significant :-D
-
I really shouldnt be supprised.... A survey by Steam (http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html[^]) shows that over 80% of people that play on the steam network use a Windows XP machine.
"There are three sides to every story. Yours, mine and the truth" ~ unknown
Last time I tried to install Half-Life 2 on my Vista machine, it failed. I managed to get the installation process going by mucking around on the DVD. The took forever, and when it was all installed, it just wouldn't work. Maybe that is the reason? :)
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
-
To be honest, I think the message your post gives off is very misleading. So, lets assume that the Steam survey is pretty accurate, which means that approximately 14.6% of gamers are using Windows Vista (in both 32-bit and 64-bit forms). Lets also assume that the November census for Hitslink is also fairly accurate, which states an approximately 9.2% market share for Vista. What does this tell you? This tells me that gamers are much more likely to be running Vista than people in general, which is a completely different meaning from "hey look, XP has more market share than Vista when it comes to gaming". In fact, your statement should be very obvious, unless Vista has somehow balooned 20% in market share over the last season, or some kind of magic like that.
Cyrilix wrote:
which states an approximately 9.2% market share for Vista.
Hitslink is including ALL OS's on the market, not just PC's. For you to make the statement you just made, is more misleading then mine. Once you take out 14 irrelivant OS's from Hitslink, then you can compare the two. either that or add in all those consoles, etc to the one on steam... either way, you will have a different result to what you have shown above. For instance, Steams survey shows 83% use XP, while the market share shows 78% If you are going to do a comparison, do it right. For all you who think I was trying to bag out Vista in my original post, I wasnt, I just thought somebody might find those stats interesting.
Cyrilix wrote:
which means that approximately 14.6%
Oh and btw.. its 12.25% at last update
"There are three sides to every story. Yours, mine and the truth" ~ unknown
-
SK Genius wrote:
Money? I find that money is usually quite the motivator.
Your talking about a group who are know for spending hundreds of $$'s just to get the latest game to run, or on the latest case to show off. Also, I dont know if you read the stats or not, but the most common graphics card among them was the nVidia 8800... Have you seen the cost on those lately?
SK Genius wrote:
Saying that gamers prefer XP is also quite the assumption
Have you been to any LAN parties lately? Hell have you even talked to many "gamers"? Not the people who play maybe one or two games a month, I mean REAL gamers! If you are near one anytime soon, just take a walk along the rows of computers there. Ask around, and see how many people, even if offered it for free, would install Vista. I would be willing to bet all my possesions that more would rather stick with XP, and I would most likely win!
SK Genius wrote:
80% of steams users are on XP.
True, 80% of over 600,000 gamers are still on XP after a year. Doesnt that alone say something?
SK Genius wrote:
you probably think FF is better than IE right? And if not, you probably think that Opera is better than IE? And if not... i guess you like IE
Care to take any more gueeses? I guess your a male right? If not, you are probably a female? and if not.... LOL sorry, I couldnt resist.. no hard feelings? :-D But yes, I do prefer FF
"There are three sides to every story. Yours, mine and the truth" ~ unknown
Thunderbox666 wrote:
Your talking about a group who are know for spending hundreds of $$'s just to get the latest game to run, or on the latest case to show off. Also, I dont know if you read the stats or not, but the most common graphics card among them was the nVidia 8800... Have you seen the cost on those lately?
You can't take it out of context, the 8800 took only 10%, the second most common was the 7600, which is err... not quite so expensive ;P
Thunderbox666 wrote:
Have you been to any LAN parties lately? Hell have you even talked to many "gamers"? Not the people who play maybe one or two games a month, I mean REAL gamers! If you are near one anytime soon, just take a walk along the rows of computers there. Ask around, and see how many people, even if offered it for free, would install Vista. I would be willing to bet all my possesions that more would rather stick with XP, and I would most likely win!
I am not saying that XP is or is not better, i'm stating that this survey doesn't PROVE that it is.
Thunderbox666 wrote:
True, 80% of over 600,000 gamers are still on XP after a year. Doesnt that alone say something?
Ok then 80% of 0.005% of all gamers, are still using XP, according to this survey. ;) According to a Nielsen Entertainment Study from 2006, there are 117,000,000 active gamers, 54% of those play online. So just to put it into perspective. I imagine the trend will follow with the majority of people still using XP. But that is not an assumption you can make, especially from one organizations user base.
My current favourite word is: Bauble!
-SK Genius
-
Cyrilix wrote:
which states an approximately 9.2% market share for Vista.
Hitslink is including ALL OS's on the market, not just PC's. For you to make the statement you just made, is more misleading then mine. Once you take out 14 irrelivant OS's from Hitslink, then you can compare the two. either that or add in all those consoles, etc to the one on steam... either way, you will have a different result to what you have shown above. For instance, Steams survey shows 83% use XP, while the market share shows 78% If you are going to do a comparison, do it right. For all you who think I was trying to bag out Vista in my original post, I wasnt, I just thought somebody might find those stats interesting.
Cyrilix wrote:
which means that approximately 14.6%
Oh and btw.. its 12.25% at last update
"There are three sides to every story. Yours, mine and the truth" ~ unknown
Alright, fair enough. I agree with your point that we do need to take out all the Non-PC operating systems in the comparison. The second thing I'd like to say is "yes, I thought you were bagging on Vista". I see that you've clarified your stance. Bashing Vista seems the "in" thing to do on the net these days, so I apologize if I was wrong there. Last thing I'd like to say is... It is 14.6%, if you add Vista 32-bit and Vista 64-bit, which is what we're interested in, right?
-
Alright, fair enough. I agree with your point that we do need to take out all the Non-PC operating systems in the comparison. The second thing I'd like to say is "yes, I thought you were bagging on Vista". I see that you've clarified your stance. Bashing Vista seems the "in" thing to do on the net these days, so I apologize if I was wrong there. Last thing I'd like to say is... It is 14.6%, if you add Vista 32-bit and Vista 64-bit, which is what we're interested in, right?
Cyrilix wrote:
Bashing Vista seems the "in" thing to do on the net these days
Dont worry... I would have no hesitation in bashing Vista, but in this case I was not.
Cyrilix wrote:
It is 14.6%, if you add Vista 32-bit and Vista 64-bit, which is what we're interested in, right?
My bad, I didnt see you say both.
"There are three sides to every story. Yours, mine and the truth" ~ unknown
modified on Monday, December 10, 2007 6:53:48 AM
-
Couldn't agree more. For decades, adult entertainment has been the driving factor behind internet bandwidth growth and gaming has been the driving factor behind hardware acceleration. Just look at the games themselves (especially FPS). When a new game comes out, its minimum requirements are most often for a graphics card that is less than 6 months old, a CPU less than 12 months old & a memory interface less than 2 years old. If you want to turn on all the bells & whistles, you're going to need hardware that often still hasn't been released to the retail channel yet! To make the most out of the demanding gaming market, new games always have to bring something new & visually exciting, so each new game is more resource intensive than the last. Run a resource hungry game on an OS that is already resource hungry (Vista) & you don't get the most out of the game. Run the same game on a leaner OS (Xp) & you get more of a WOW factor. Back in the day, the keenest gamers absolutely loved it when ID ported Quake II to OpenGL under Linux - frame rates like you wouldn't believe (at the time). Don't know if that sort of thing happens these days, I'm not in that scene so much anymore...
T-Mac-Oz
Absolutely. Windows is really bloated at the moment. Microsoft should just make a bare minimum OS where the unnecessary components aren't even on the disk platter, and allow the users to choose the parts they actually need. I believe Microsoft is already working on componentizing the OS?
ROFLOLMFAO
-
Thunderbox666 wrote:
Who do you think it is that is mainly accepting vista?
I am. I am also a serious gamer and play games on Vista. I also play console games, but this is irrelevant. I had slight problems with a couple of _older_ titles on Vista, but nothing that couldn't be solved by trying out different compatibility settings. New games (those marked by 'Games for Windows' tag) run well on Vista without any problems at all.
Kind regards, Pawel Krakowiak Miraculum Software[^]
I do a lot of gaming on Vista. My old XP box (Geforce 5 series video card, 1GB ram, 2.2 GHz single-core CPU) is too slow for any heavy graphics. My laptop has Vista, a Geforce 8600, 2GB ram, and a 2.2GHz dual-core processor. I have had no performance problems at all with it. There were a few minor compatibility glitches with some of my software, but nothing that a little recoding wouldn't fix.
-
Yes but I opt for one with XP or if thats not an option, the first thing I do is upgrade it to XP when I get it home. I also do this for quite a few of my friends too.
"There are three sides to every story. Yours, mine and the truth" ~ unknown
Are you buying XP licenses for them? IIRC only the retail business/ultimate licenses allow downgrading. OEM or boxed home basic/premium need not apply.
Otherwise [Microsoft is] toast in the long term no matter how much money they've got. They would be already if the Linux community didn't have it's head so firmly up it's own command line buffer that it looks like taking 15 years to find the desktop. -- Matthew Faithfull
-
its going to be a close race... Who do you think it is that is mainly accepting vista? As that hardware survey from steam shows, most gamers prefer XP, and I saw a thing recently saying that corporate environments are holding off on installing Vista.
"There are three sides to every story. Yours, mine and the truth" ~ unknown
Thunderbox666 wrote:
I saw a thing recently saying that corporate environments are holding off on installing Vista.
I haven't heard anything about it at my employer ~1400-1500, but the first userland heard about the january Office07 install was early this month. MY SWAG is that vista will be handled like XP apparently was and just get rolled out via new machine issues once they're happy with being able to manage it. (assumption based on the handful of people at the tail end of the laptop cycle who still had 2k when I started).
Otherwise [Microsoft is] toast in the long term no matter how much money they've got. They would be already if the Linux community didn't have it's head so firmly up it's own command line buffer that it looks like taking 15 years to find the desktop. -- Matthew Faithfull
-
Actually i think i could. :rolleyes: And you wonder why schools block these kinds of websites... as well as workplaces. (Of course, if your clever, there's no block that can stop you)
My current favourite word is: Bauble!
-SK Genius
thats OK your employer will respond to your proxy showing up in the logs with a nice piece of pink paper. :doh:
Otherwise [Microsoft is] toast in the long term no matter how much money they've got. They would be already if the Linux community didn't have it's head so firmly up it's own command line buffer that it looks like taking 15 years to find the desktop. -- Matthew Faithfull